The scale of the Albanese government\u2019s climate action ambition for the next decade will be set this week with the anticipated release of its 2035 emissions reduction target.<\/p>\n
The target is one of several expected announcements revealing the \u201cscary\u201d risks posed by the climate crisis, what the government intends to do, and how.<\/p>\n
Climate risks<\/p>\n
The first announcement, expected on Monday, will be the release of the national climate risk assessment, a long-promised analysis of the economic and environmental risks posed by the climate crisis.<\/p>\n
People familiar with it have said it is \u201cintense and scary\u201d, and confronting even for those who work in the area<\/a>. It will be accompanied by a national climate adaptation plan, a high-level framework for managing a changing climate.<\/p>\n Developed by the Australian Climate Service and the climate change department, work on the risk assessment has included highly detailed modelling of future damage, estimates of the number of people who could be killed by worsening heatwaves and development of a mapping tool that forecasts flooding risk in suburbs across the continent.<\/p>\n Sources say that under some scenarios, even major systems \u2013 such as electricity networks, transport routes, food production and the financial sector \u2013 could struggle to cope.<\/p>\n Cutting emissions<\/p>\n The biggest announcement will be the government\u2019s 2035 emissions reduction target, expected on Thursday or Friday after cabinet signoff.<\/p>\n Like the risk assessment, this has been significantly delayed. It was initially promised by February but postponed until after the May election as the government waited on advice from the Climate Change Authority, a government agency chaired by former NSW Liberal treasurer Matt Kean.<\/p>\n The government is expected to announce the target at the same time it releases a barrage of reports, including the Climate Change Authority\u2019s target advice, a plan to reach net zero by 2050 and an analysis of what can be done to cut pollution in six sectors of the economy, including electricity and energy, transport, industry, agriculture and land, resources and the built environment.<\/p>\n New policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions are expected to be unveiled alongside the new goal, which would build on the government\u2019s 2030 target of a 43% reduction on 2005 levels.<\/p>\n The latest annual emissions projections<\/a>, published in November, suggest the government is on track to hit 42.6% \u2013 just shy of the legislated target.<\/p>\n Setting targets<\/p>\n The 2035 target matters not just in Australia, but internationally. It will be submitted to the UN as part of the country\u2019s \u201cnationally determined contribution\u201d \u2013 what the government says it can do to help the world meet goals in the 2015 Paris agreement. The climate change minister, Chris Bowen<\/a>, has indicated Australia is likely to submit a range rather than a single number.<\/p>\n skip past newsletter promotion<\/a><\/p>\n Sign up to Clear Air Australia<\/p>\n Adam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisis<\/p>\n Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com<\/a> to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy<\/a>. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy<\/a> and Terms of Service<\/a> apply.<\/p>\n after newsletter promotion<\/p>\n The Paris deal includes a commitment that the target must be more ambitious than the existing 2030 goal \u2013 there can be no backsliding \u2013 and reflect the country\u2019s \u201chighest possible ambition\u201d. The Climate Change Authority released a consultation paper in April 2024 with its preliminary assessment, finding a cut of at least 65% and up to 75% \u201cwould be ambitious and could be achievable<\/a> if additional action is taken by governments, business, investors and households\u201d.<\/p>\n Since then, the authority has been consulting with experts and interest groups and has undertaken modelling to refine its advice. It is understood its board \u2013 including scientists and business figures<\/a> \u2013 reached its final position last week, and the report is yet to go to government.<\/p>\n The authority is required to consider what the best scientific advice says Australia should be doing to keep alive the goal of trying to limit global heating to 1.5C since preindustrial times. It should also consider the international political and diplomatic landscape, the economics of what\u2019s possible, the pace of technological development and what is considered socially deliverable.<\/p>\n From a scientific view, analyses have found Australia should make a percentage cut of somewhere between the high 70s to 100% \u2013 actually reaching net zero \u2013 by 2035. Australia\u2019s Pacific island neighbours have also stressed the need for their more developed friend to be as ambitious as possible \u2013 and to stop approving new fossil fuel developments<\/a>.<\/p>\n Some of these analyses \u2013 including by the thinktank Climate Analytics and the Australian Conservation Foundation \u2013 have detailed estimates of how cuts could be made to meet a target of at least 75%. Climate campaigners generally believe the target range must include 75% to be credible.<\/p>\n But other experts, such as Frank Jotzo, the director of the Australian National University\u2019s Centre for Climate and Energy<\/a> Policy, have argued that even a target of 65% would be ambitious, given it would require pollution to be effectively cut in half over the next decade. He argues that new policies behind the target are ultimately more important than the number.<\/p>\n Business organisations are politically influential and vary markedly in their positions. One group of about 500 that includes Fortescue, Atlassian, Ikea and Unilever has argued strongly for 75%. Others have emphasised the cost of action and pitched for a goal in the 50s.<\/p>\n